Micah: A New Translation With Introduction and Commentary

Trinity Journal, Fall 2004 by VanGemeren, Willem A

The commentary is a rare treat. Not only do the authors engage with the scholarly literature, they also engage afresh with the biblical material. The strength of the commentary lies in the literary and compositional approach. Intertextuality further strengthens the literary argumentation by their interpretation of reading Micah in relation to other OT texts (Deuteronomy, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Zechariah) and by linking themes in Micah to thematic complexes that have shaped Israel's traditions (Sinai, Zion).

Critical scholars will argue that the authors have taken the easy way out by not locating each text within a historical context. Certainly, the rhetorical and synchronie dimension trumps the diachronic. In support of their approach is the tenacity of the historical-critical approaches that have so isolated the literary units that synthesis was thought not only impossible, it was also undesirable. The weakness of these approaches has become the strength of Andersen and Freedman, who claim that "the problems of historical reconstruction and of literary analysis go hand in hand. . . . The more we emphasize the formal literary unity in terms of cohesive structural features . . . , the less immediately and firmly can the Book of Visions be attached to concrete events and specific dates" (p. 496). The authors situate the background broadly in the historical context of 1:1, arguing "it makes a big difference to the interpretation of many parts of the book, ... if the data supplied by the title (1:1) are to be accepted as a control" (p. 129).

Not only do Andersen and Freedman take the eighth century as providing the broad historical framework for understanding the book, they also argue in favor of the authenticity of eschatological texts in Micah. Critics have often rejected the texts that project an ideal world as intrusions originating from a later editor or author. Andersen and Freedman defend the literary integrity of "eschatological texts." They conclude, "The common presupposition that hopes for the future were expressed in eschatological terms only after the Exile should be relinquished, or at least gravely questioned and modified" (p. 496). They combine the literary, historical, and eschatological dimensions of the text. For example, by situating the vision of God's kingdom (4:1-5) within the historical world of the growing dominance of Assyria, the fall of Samaria, and the expected end of Jerusalem, the authors understand the text as realistic: "If we limit the vision to the area between Assyria and Egypt. . . , then there is nothing unrealistic about the vision or the picture of the nations coming to Jerusalem . . ., only now they are going there to worship the great God" (p. 413).

Critical scholars will also find fault with the commentators' interpretation of the final form of the text to the virtual exclusion of the forms of the text. Other books have already provided such a form-critical analysis (see H. W. Wolff, Micah: A Commentary [CC; Minneapolis: Augsburg, 199O]). The recent volume in the series FOTL (vol. 2Ib) by Ehud Ben Zvi, Micah (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000) is of limited value, as the author interprets Micah by the single genre of prophetic reading whereby the audience in subsequent times was encouraged to explain the past judgments and to develop hope in their own historical contexts. The commentary by William McKane (Micah: Introduction and Commentary [Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1998]) follows the critical approach in taking the original message of the eighth century Micah (chs. 1-3, except for 2:12-13) as having been gradually enlarged by later prophets (chs. 4-7). The redactional reading by Mignon R. Jacobs (The Conceptual Coherence of the Book of Micah [JSOTS 322; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 2001]) develops a twofold structure (chs. 1-5; 6-7) under four concepts (justice, sin, judgment, hope) by which post-exilic redactors organized the book.